GR 239416; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 239416 , July 24, 2019
MELCHOR J. CHIPOCO, CHRISTY C. BUGANUTAN, CERIACO P. SABIJON, THELMA F. ANTOQUE, GLENDA G. ESLABON, AND AIDA P. VILLAMIL, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, represented by HONORABLE CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, in her official capacity as Tanodbayan, HONORABLE RODOLFO M. ELMAN, in his official capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, HONORABLE HILDE C. DELA CRUZ-LIKIT, in her official capacities as Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III and Officer-in Charge, Evaluation and Investigation Bureau-A, Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, and HONORABLE JAY M. VISTO, in his official capacity as Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II, and ROBERTO R. GALON, Respondents
FACTS
On November 26, 2010, then Mayor Wilfredo S. Balais sold his Nissan Patrol Wagon to Eduardo A. Ayunting for ₱500,000.00. On January 28, 2011, Ayunting sold the same vehicle to the Municipality of Labason, Zamboanga del Norte, represented by then Vice Mayor Virgilio J. Go, for ₱960,000.00. The Sangguniang Bayan later passed a resolution authorizing the rescission of the contract, finding the purchase price disadvantageous to the government. Respondent Roberto R. Galon filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioners, who were local government officials (municipal treasurer/BAC chairperson, municipal accountant, BAC members, and BAC secretariat), charging them with various offenses including violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Based on new documents submitted by Ayunting, who turned state witness, the Ombudsman found probable cause against petitioners for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and for falsification of public documents under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, arguing the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it found probable cause to charge petitioners for their respective violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Court ruled that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition was dismissed and the prayer for injunctive relief was denied. The Ombudsman’s Resolution dated December 8, 2017 and Order dated March 5, 2018 were affirmed.
The Court held that while the Ombudsman’s investigatory and prosecutorial powers are plenary, its acts may be reviewed when tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion occurs when there is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, such as unduly disregarding crucial facts and evidence or blatantly violating the Constitution, law, or jurisprudence. The Court found that the Ombudsman properly grounded its finding of probable cause—defined as the existence of facts and circumstances leading a person of ordinary caution to entertain an honest and strong suspicion of guilt—on the evidence presented. The Ombudsman pointed out that petitioners’ acts satisfied the elements of the crimes charged. The issues raised by petitioners regarding the lack of unwarranted benefits, the rescission of the contract, and the testimony of a witness were deemed evidentiary matters best threshed out in a full-blown trial. The Court also found the grant of injunctive relief inappropriate as it would result in the prejudgment of the main case.